Journal des débats 1983-déc-13 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity of providing the people in the Legislature with some of the fruits of Victoria, which is located in Haldimand-Norfolk. It reminds us that Christmas is not far away and that we are getting near the end of the session. I would like to extend season's greetings to you and the members of the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much.

POLISH ANNIVERSARY

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, today is December 13, which marks the second anniversary of the imposition of martial law in Poland. It is important for this Legislature to recall that although martial law was lifted in Poland in July 1983, for a great many people the situation has not improved dramatically. Trade unionists and many others are still in jail and we understand there are now 11 who are awaiting trial. Those 11 are seven activists in Solidarity and four in KOR, which is the Committee for Workers' Defence and a supporter of Solidarity. All 11 individuals are charged with sedition and "crimes against the state."

I am sure that in the week following the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to Mr. Lech Walesa, the founder of the Solidarity movement, the members of the Legislature would want to join me and members of my party in marking with a sense of real sadness that this is the second anniversary of the imposition of martial law in Poland and that for a great many people in that wonderful country, freedom is not yet the friend we all feel it should be.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

INDIAN BAND AGREEMENT

Hon. Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, in my capacity as minister responsible for native affairs, I am pleased to report to members of the Legislature that earlier today I was able to sign an official agreement for our government with the Islington band. I am also pleased to announce that a letter of intent has been signed with Chief Mandamin of the band and Ontario Hydro. This letter recognizes that agreement on major issues has been reached and that every effort is being made to finalize the matter and to bring about its successful completion.

Ontario Hydro and the Islington band have reached agreement on the terms of a settlement which includes $1.5 million to the band and the transfer of some 4,200 acres. This transfer will be to the federal government for addition to the Whitedog reserve in compensation for reserve lands flooded by the Caribou Falls Hydro dam some years ago.

Members will recall that the government agreed to implement the recommendations as contained in the report of the Royal Commission on the Northern Environment. Essentially, the commission recommended that special attention be provided to the social and economic needs of the Islington and Grassy Narrows bands.

In response, a mediation process was entered into with the two bands, the federal government and Ontario to identify and implement measures which would improve the general conditions of these communities. The major initiatives as contained in the agreement signed this morning with the Islington band are as follows.

The province will provide up to $1 million to be used for the construction of a greenhouse, as well as equipment and related facilities for the production of seedlings for reforestation. The greenhouse will be built near the Whitedog reserve. The Ministry of Natural Resources will enter into a long-term contract with the band for the purchase of the seedlings. As well, an additional $537,500 will be held in a fund for the band's use in equipping band commercial fishermen, trappers and guides. The funds may also be used for future expansion of the greenhouse operation.

With respect to wild rice, Ontario agrees to license all bodies of water in the southern subsection of the present registered area to the Islington band for the exclusive harvesting of wild rice by its members. This licensing agreement will continue as long as reasonable harvesting of wild rice takes place. In the northern subsection of the band's present registered area, the band agrees that while the right of first refusal for harvesting jobs will be granted, licences for this area will be made available to any resident of Ontario.

With respect to the bays of Swan Lake, which are adjacent to the boundaries of the reserve, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) will recommend that changes be made to the regulations under the Wild Rice Harvesting Act. This amendment would allow the band to harvest wild rice on Swan Lake without conditions of production. This licence will not be changed without the mutual consent of the Minister of Natural Resources and the Islington band.

In order to ensure that the band has access to fish for its personal use, specific lakes near the reserve have been identified for band members to fish for food and to stock the band's community freezer. In this area, sports fishing will be allowed to continue.

For commercial fishing, the band will retain its current licences with quotas to be negotiated with the Minister of Natural Resources. Ontario will purchase the assets of an additional commercial fishing licence for a reasonable price from a willing seller and transfer the licence and assets to the Islington band.

Should the quotas in the band's commercial licences be reduced for biological reasons, Ontario has designated other lakes on which the band could obtain a replacement licence with satisfactory quotas.

Ontario will also assist the band to obtain the assets and licences for specific traplines in the area near the band's reserve lands on a willing seller-willing buyer basis.

With respect to the band's interest in increasing its logging activities in the area near its reserve land, Ontario has agreed to increase the band's present cord allotment in the future depending on the availability of supply and appropriate harvesting. Present nonband timber licences near the reserve will be relocated to new timber harvesting areas on a phased basis as the English River road currently under construction progresses north of Separation Lake.

The band will have the first right of refusal on all new resource-related jobs, except family operations, in the area immediately surrounding the reserve.

Other employment and training programs to be implemented by the province for the band include a tree planting program; purchase of jackpine cones; seasonal contracts for band members as firefighting crews; jobs as extra firefighters as needed; a road maintenance training program; road maintenance contracts; an annual subsidy to the band to maintain its community fish freezer program; short-term training for off-reserve employment in resource development; and a social service training program.

2:10 p.m.

Finally, initiatives to be undertaken in co-operation with band members to address the social needs of the Whitedog community include a commitment to study the needs of the band children, mutually identified and assessed by the ministry and the band; a commitment to study the needs of elderly band members; a commitment to study the band's need for infant care; a commitment to establish services and facilities or to expand existing facilities and services which are identified through the studies just mentioned; funding up to an amount of 50 per cent for a covered ice surface and community hall if the band can provide matching funds and operational funds; matching funds for two years for a recreation director on the reserve; and a $15,000 grant for one year's service towards the cost of employing an educational consultant to develop an education program on the reserve.

The final point contained in the agreement relates to future development. In order to provide the band with an opportunity to comment on future development in the area surrounding their reserve lands, Ontario has agreed to give the band 60 days' notice of all applications for developments involving a cost of more than $150,000.

As I indicated in my opening remarks, negotiations were entered into with both the Islington and Grassy Narrows bands. With respect to the Grassy Narrows band, I am pleased to report the following progress. At the band's request, negotiations with Ontario had been suspended. I have recently met, however, with Chief Fobister of the band and will resume discussions again in January. It is my hope that together we will be able to address in the very near future the concerns which have been identified.

During the past few months, both parties have negotiated in good faith. From these discussions, a solid relationship has emerged between the Islington band and the Ontario government. May I say that there has been a very personal commitment on behalf of the chief of the Islington band, Chief Isaac Mandamin, who is sitting in the members' gallery to my right. It is my hope that this relationship will continue long after the conditions of this agreement have been fulfilled.

ELECTION LEGISLATION

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say that at the appropriate time today it will be my privilege to introduce the new Ontario Election Act.

Because free elections are the cornerstone of our parliamentary democracy, I believe I should use this occasion to review in some detail the philosophy and process embodied in the bill I will be introducing.

This will be the first substantial amendment to our election act since the present legislation was passed in 1969 and draws upon the experience of the past 15 years in attempting to adjust to the contemporary environment. In doing so, we will also preserve many of the traditional and time-tested election procedures which have served us well in Ontario in past years.

Mr. Martel: Yes, unlimited spending.

Mr. Rae: Ask Larry about that; he is an expert on those things.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Wells: My friends, whom I assume are more knowledgeable of these things, will understand that this is the Election Act, not the election contributions and finances act.

Mr. Martel: It is not coming in as a companion piece, then.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Underlying everything in this bill is the commitment that government exists only by the will of the people and that our citizens must be unhindered in expressing this will through a secure, accessible and easily understood electoral process. For this reason, the new act broadens both the physical and the procedural access of citizens to the polls.

Election day in Ontario continues to be Thursday. The bill provides for a common time for polling between 9 a.m. and 8 p.m., local time, year-round, except in the districts of Kenora and Rainy River, which are in the Central time zone; polls there will be open from 8 a.m. until 7 p.m., Central time. The effect of this is that no poll will open sooner or close later than any other poll in Ontario.

The minimum period between the issue of the writs and polling day is reduced from 37 days to 30 days, but nomination day will remain 14 days before polling day. These changes will allow for a shorter election period, recognizing the trend towards this across Canada.

There are three significant changes in the nomination process: a reduction from 100 to 25 in the number of signatures required for nomination; the requirement for the first time of a deposit of $200; and the requirement of a statement of having filed or an undertaking to file for registration with the Commission on Election Contributions and Expenses from each candidate.

But I believe that perhaps the most important changes in this new bill are designed to better accommodate the electors and to remove any barriers that deter them from exercising their franchise. Enumerators will be required to make three visits before leaving a notice envelope at the residence, and provision is made to add names to the voters' lists up until the day before polling. In rural ridings the historic right of election day vouching will be continued.

We are proposing as well to add Thursday to the Saturday and Monday before election day for broadly situated advance polls. As a further convenience, six additional days of polling before election day will be held in the premises of the returning officer, these being on the 12th, 10th, ninth, eighth, sixth and second days before election day.

In addition, the bill broadens the category of those who may act for the voter at the revision of the polls; for example, a teen-age child asking to have a parent's name added. The bill also extends to an elector who is away from the riding during the polling period on business the right of designating a proxy. However, as a precaution, one person can be a voting proxy for no more than two electors, and there are very specific penalties for any corruption connected with proxy voting.

Returning officers will be required to seek out polling locations that have access for the disabled. Polling officials will be authorized to move the ballot box to help the elderly or disabled; for example, carrying the box to the door if the voter cannot come inside.

Municipalities and school boards, along with landlords of premises of more than 100 dwelling units, will be required to make polling space available at the request of the returning officer.

Finally, the grounds for a judicial recount are being restricted solely to determine who is the winning candidate. As members know, recounts were considered in past years to determine second or third places to establish entitlements for rebates or status in subsequent elections.

A further change removes the term "British subject" as a voter qualification --

Mr. Breithaupt: Excellent idea.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- after July 1, 1986, when we --

Mr. T. P. Reid: You have no shame at all.

Mr. Breithaupt: You are going to give it one more shot.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Just in case there is one more United Empire Loyalist left.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I think my friend realizes that in these matters there are still some people in Ontario who feel that notice should be given of this change. But once this bill is passed, it will be in effect after July 1, 1986.

At that time we will be using terminology that will be similar to the federal and most provincial election acts; that is, the basis for voting will be Canadian citizenship. The residence requirement will be changed from 12 months' to six months' residence in the province at the same time, July 1, 1986.

There are, of course, a great many more changes of an administrative nature, which are all based on the experience of recent elections and which are found in this bill.

Mr. Bradley: What about election spending?

Hon. Mr. Wells: My friend, I just answered that. This bill has nothing to do with election spending.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Wells: While this legislation is of necessity being introduced by me as a government bill, it belongs in reality to all of us in this House. In presenting it today I would like to acknowledge and thank the initiative, first, of the former chief election officer, the Clerk of the House, and the present chief election officer, Mr. Warren Bailie, who is sitting under the gallery. Each of these gentlemen contributed much and provided much in the basis and detail of this new bill.

2:20 p.m.

This legislation affects members directly as the means by which we all come to serve in this Legislature, but the election process is for all and affects all citizens. It is one of the most cherished and zealously guarded rights of our democratic society and together we have a very direct responsibility for it.

In presenting this bill today, I am not presenting the usual compendium that the rules provide for with the bill because there may be a multitude of supporting documents that all members of the House may wish. I will endeavour to supply anything that members wish as they consider this bill and the chief election officer and his staff are available to all members to provide any backup information they might wish on the bill.

We are, of course, not going to proceed with this bill before the Christmas prorogation. The winter holiday will give us all the time to read it, to have the bill considered by our associates, those we represent, our constituents, and we will have an opportunity to discuss and formulate ideas on it. It is, as I just said, a bill that belongs to all of us in this Legislature.

Mr. T. P. Reid: The bill requires a compendium.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I am asking for agreement not to have a compendium and for members to supply me with requests for information they wish or talk to the chief election officer about what they feel would be necessary. By this, and through our considerations next spring when we bring the bill back for debate and consideration in this House, we can bring forward very effective reforms of the election process in this province.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Some of my friends opposite will think I am being overly technical, but the rules do provide that the minister introducing a bill shall provide a compendium. If this matter is as important as the minister has suggested, I suggest that a full compendium dealing with the bill be provided to all members. The minister cannot just waive the rules like that.

Mr. Speaker: I understood the minister to say the backup material was quite lengthy and voluminous and he will supply on request whatever material is needed.

Mr. T. P. Reid: That is not what the rules say.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If you are asking that we have unanimous consent for this provision to be waived, perhaps the government House leader would so indicate.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I will provide one copy of a compendium to each party when I introduce the bill in one hour.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

CHILD ABUSE

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege about an issue of a very serious nature. I raised a case in the House yesterday with which you will no doubt be familiar. It is the case of the Hamilton woman by the name of Gail Cochrane who ended up on the child abuse registry following an incident that involved the conviction of another person. I would like to read into the record a statement that was made by the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea) in the scrum outside.

"'In charge of,' that does not mean you have to be the parent, the guardian or whatever; it means that at the particular time something was done to the child you were in the position to control the child. It is not something you did by remote control. In this particular case in Hamilton, come on, she watched."

That was a statement made by the minister outside the House in the scrum yesterday. I have here a sworn affidavit from the mother involved to the effect that she did not watch and was not privy to the situation. This is a very serious allegation. It is potentially libellous and I think it is very important that the minister should clear up the record on this with a public apology.

I also have a letter from the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) to me, dated August 9, 1983, about that very case, in reply to correspondence I sent to him about the severity or lack thereof of the sentence. I would like to quote into the record the statement made by the Attorney General. "It is very doubtful that a statement made by the accused to the police would have been admissible at the trial. The four-year-old girl likely would not have testified at the trial. No one else saw the incident in question."

This letter was written to me by the Attorney General of this province on August 9. The woman is in the gallery today and I believe the minister should rise in his place and offer a public apology to Gail Cochrane and to correct the record.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I regret very much that the honourable member has identified the woman. I noticed that in Hansard yesterday.

Mr. Nixon: That is not the issue.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Do not tell me what the issue is.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Nixon: You said she watched.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I am going to tell the members a little bit about this case and I really do not want to. There are an abundant number of reasons why that woman is on the child abuse registry, one of which is she was in proximity while the sexual abuse took place by her boyfriend. There are other charges and other allegations against this mother. I hope the honourable member is not going to make me read what she did to the child.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege --

Some hon. members: Shame.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Ms. Copps: This is far too important to let drop. It is quite clear, according to the statement made by the Attorney General of this province, that no one witnessed that incident. The minister libelled the woman outside this House. He owes her a public apology.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the member please resume her seat.

Ms. Copps: The Attorney General stated in his letter --

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are on statements by the ministry.

HELICOPTER PRODUCTION

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House that earlier today the Honourable Ed Lumley and myself announced a $70-million helicopter initiative with Messerschmidt-Bulkow-Blohm, MBB, of West Germany. Under the terms of the agreement, MBB will develop and manufacture in Canada models of light twin-engine helicopters. MBB will develop this engineering capability at Fort Erie, Ontario, through a joint venture arrangement with Fleet Industries.

Ontario's share of this investment is $14 million and the federal government will contribute $20.9 million. We expect this initiative will result in the creation of approximately 270 direct jobs plus 300 indirect jobs.

Work on production of the light twin-engine helicopter will start early next year. The models offered Canada are high-performance aircraft which have a competitive advantage in certain regional and specialized applications. At the same time, development work will begin on major component improvements such as the dynamic system, not only to improve the capabilities of this helicopter but also to be utilized for other MBB helicopters produced in Germany. These components will also be incorporated into the follow-up production of helicopters at the new Canadian facility.

MBB helicopters are highly regarded internationally and the company is one of the leaders worldwide in rotor technology. Sales of the company's helicopters in 1982 were worth $260 million and have tripled since 1977. The company has the distinction of being one of the few that has not had to cut back production since the recession began in 1981.

The Fort Erie facility will be the company's first production plant in North America and will form the basis of a long-term relationship with Canada. The company will provide the necessary financial, technical and international marketing support to ensure the success of its Canadian venture.

The $34.9-million investment by the federal government and the province will be repaid by MBB in the form of a two per cent royalty on the total sales of helicopters, accessory kits and spares produced by the new company.

Let me conclude by indicating my full support for this major development in our country's aerospace industry. Ontario is very pleased to be part of MBB's first major North American manufacturing initiative and we look forward to an ongoing relationship with this important West German high-technology transportation equipment manufacturer.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order. Before that, may I compliment the minister on the activities of both the federal and provincial governments with respect to that statement. That is the kind of good news we like to hear.

2:30 p.m.

ERROR IN PUBLICATION

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, you might remember that on Friday last my colleague the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) rose in his place to point out to you that the annual report of the Ministry of Energy had placed his constituency in the state of New York. I gather this is being corrected.

I rise in my place today to point out that I have just received the annual report of the Ministry of Industry and Trade as part of the package for the estimates which begin tomorrow. I would draw to your attention that on page 26 of this report it is reported that for the year ending March 31, 1983, the ministry administration spent $8.7 billion, the industry division spent $18.3 billion, the trade division spent $11.7 billion, and payments to Massey-Ferguson were $75.8 billion, for a total of $115.3 billion.

Given the fact that the entire budget of Ontario is roughly $24 billion, I am really at a loss to understand how the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. F. S. Miller) can spend $115 billion. Perhaps it would be wise to know how far this has been distributed and what action is being taken to correct it.

Mr. Speaker: Maybe the minister knows something the rest of us do not.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, one of the problems I face is that as an engineer I learned my mathematics with a slide rule. They do not have a decimal place.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MERCURY POLLUTION

Mr. J. A. Reed: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development in the light of the important events which have been announced by him today.

It has been 13 years since mercury was discovered in the English-Wabigoon river system. It has been five years since mediation was begun in order to finally reach this settlement. It means that half a generation has lost opportunities as a result of that pollution.

The minister is aware that a steering committee was established to study the mercury pollution in the late 1970s and to look at remedial measures to lower the mercury level in the system. The minister knows the committee has not yet reported, even though that report is now two years overdue.

For the minister's information, I should also point out that the interim report of that committee stated, "The rate of decline," that is, of mercury concentration, "is now so gradual that fish in this lake are expected to continue to exceed the guidelines for human consumption for a long time, probably for many decades, unless effective remedial measures are taken."

Can the minister tell us what remedial measures are being taken and when this report on the mercury contamination of this river system is going to be tabled in the Legislature?

Hon. Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, I believe the report is being undertaken for the Ministry of the Environment. Although I was involved with the negotiations with the Islington band in relation to the social and economic policy as we promised in 1978, and we have been negotiating with them for the past five years, I did not deal specifically with the environmental problem of the English-Wabigoon rivers. Therefore, I would direct the response to my colleague the Minister of the Environment.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, as I think the honourable member is aware, Environment Canada along with my ministry is conducting a study of the levels of mercury pollution in the English-Wabigoon. That study should be completed very shortly.

It is a co-operative undertaking between the two levels of government and I would be pleased to release that study as soon as it is completed and available to me. I have not seen it yet. I cannot give the honourable member a confirmed date, but my understanding is that it will be soon and I hope it will be early in the new year. I shall be happy to get back to him at that time.

Mr. J. A. Reed: I thank the minister for confirming that it is now more than two years overdue and may well be even longer before we get to see that report and before any remedial measures can be taken.

In regard to the subject of unfinished business, I would ask the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development about the assumption of certain responsibilities undertaken by Great Lakes Forest Products when the company was involved in the transaction regarding Reed Ltd. I wonder if the minister would confirm with us whether the Premier (Mr. Davis) has met with the president of Great Lakes Forest Products on this matter and if there is any concern being expressed to that company about settling its obligation?

Hon. Mr. Sterling: I know the Premier did meet with the president of Great Lakes Forest Products some time ago. I do not know if he has recently met with the president.

On November 14 of this year I met with the Honourable John Munro, president of Great Lakes Forest Products, the chief officer of the Grassy Narrows band and Chief Mandamin of the Whitedog band and indicated our displeasure that an agreement had not been reached between Great Lakes Forest Products and the two bands. I must admit the federal Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the Honourable John Munro, took the same tack and agreed with me that a settlement was long overdue.

As a result of the meeting with Mr. Munro and with the president on November 14 in Ottawa, there was a promise that they would bring forward an offer of settlement to the two bands within a month, so we are getting very close to the end of that period. I understand that in the next few days there may be some offer made to the bands from the paper company.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, can the minister confirm that Reed Ltd. has indicated it is prepared to participate in a significant way and that the holdup in terms of reaching an agreement with Great Lakes Forest Products was not, as Great Lakes tried to indicate, a result of the reticence of Reed to participate in the settlement?

Hon. Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm the internal dispute between the two paper companies one way or the other or say what was wrangling and what was not wrangling. All I know is that they are jointly negotiating with the Indian bands and I stated our clear displeasure. Whatever wrangling there was between the two companies should be settled between the companies. They should be dealing with the two bands and seeking a resolution.

Mr. J. A. Reed: If I understood the minister's response to me, Mr. Munro actually called on the paper company regarding this concern. I would like to ask the minister why that was so when this settlement is a provincial responsibility?

Hon. Mr. Sterling: As a matter of fact, this is not a provincial or a federal responsibility; it is a matter between the Indian bands and the paper companies. It is purely a civil matter in law between those two companies. If a settlement cannot be reached, there has been a threat of a suit by the bands against the paper companies and they will seek their remedy that way.

2:40 p.m.

The only involvement the provincial government has had was to encourage the purchase of the company by Great Lakes Forest Products from Reed Ltd. We said to Great Lakes and Reed that we would limit their liability to $15 million total from any source, be it the bands, tourist operators, any citizen of Ontario or any other citizen who would have a legitimate legal claim. That has been our only involvement and that is the way our involvement has stayed. It is entirely a matter between the bands and the paper companies.

ACTIVITIES OF POLICE

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, on a point of very urgent public importance: At this moment the Ontario Provincial Police are searching the homes of the leaders of the Canadian Farmers' Survival Association. I want to tell the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) and the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor) that we have had a bellyful of this extortion on the part of these OPP. They are using --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Grey-Bruce, please resume your seat.

[Later]

Hon. G. W. Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Solicitor General on a point of order.

Mr. Martel: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: We already have a member on a point of order.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, you did not recognize the point of order of the member for Grey-Bruce; how can you now allow a statement by the Solicitor General in response to something you did not recognize?

Mr. Speaker: I have no idea what the minister is going to say. Despite my many talents, as somebody said the other night, clairvoyance is not one of them.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I am pretty sure the member for Grey-Bruce used the word "extortion" earlier. I am sure he would like to withdraw that word in regard to the carrying out of the function of the Ontario Provincial Police.

Mr. Speaker: If the member for Grey-Bruce did use that language, I would ask him to withdraw it.

Mr. Sargent: I will check it out with my lawyers. Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker: No. I think I am the only "lawyer" in this House who makes those decisions.

Mr. Sargent: If you want to hear the proper wording of what I wanted to say, I will tell you.

Mr. Speaker: All you have to say is, "I withdraw, Mr. Speaker."

Mr. Sargent: If you guys were in the same situation, you would do the same damned thing.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Sargent: I still think it is extortion.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Sargent: You are using the banks to collect the money for them.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the member please withdraw those remarks.

Mr. Sargent: It is no reflection on them. I am talking about the system; that is all. I will take back what I said to you, the Solicitor General and the Attorney General.

Mr. Speaker: The language is unacceptable and I would ask you to withdraw it.

Mr. Sargent: I will withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker: Now the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) is happy.

ELECTION LEGISLATION

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the government House leader, who, in introducing the package of reforms to the Election Act today, stressed the importance of adjusting the electoral process in Ontario to "the contemporary environment."

Can the government House leader indicate if, as and when he will be introducing in this House amendments to the election expenses legislation to establish, in the light of the contemporary environment, very clearly understood limits at the local level to control spending in the several electoral districts, in view of the fact that, according to the Ottawa Citizen of Monday, December 12, and according to Progressive Conservative sources, the government party is preparing to spend in excess of $100,000 in the current by-election in the united counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, an electoral district where federally the ceiling is a third of that alleged amount?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I do not have any immediate plans to introduce any amendments to the Election Finances Reform Act.

Mr. Conway: There are people in the far east who think it is a "buy-election," b-u-y.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Conway: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Conway: How can the government House leader expect the people of Ontario to believe he is adjusting to "a contemporary environment" if the government is not prepared, particularly in this the day, month and age of restraint, to move quickly to cap the expenditures at the local level so that we as taxpayers will not be forced to see and subsidize these six-digit amounts that are spoken of by Progressive Conservative sources in Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry and so that we are not asked to subsidize the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman), who in the last campaign expended some $130,000 in a riding where federally the limits are much lower than that?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I feel like getting up to thank the speaker right now. If the member opposite takes a look at our Election Finances Reform Act, I think it is a better act than the federal act. We have put more stringent limits on the amount that can be contributed by corporations and individuals --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- and we have brought a degree of openness to campaign financing. It is incumbent, I believe, upon each individual member to decide how much he wishes to spend on his campaign. Let me also remind my friend that we do have limits on advertising expenditures in our financing act.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, does the government House leader not feel there is something cynical in the government suddenly being prepared to lavish more than $100,000 in campaign expenditure in a riding it has effectively ignored in respect of job-creating investments or job-creating programs over the course of the last 10 years? Why does the government not get its priorities right?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where this $100,000 figure came from because --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- I have not had anything to do with the financing of that by-election.

Mr. Martel: Put some limits on it.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I want the members to remember that they will know from a completely open statement, who contributed to that campaign. I draw the members' attention to the fact that we do have an open financial contribution process. We do have a limit on advertising expenditures in our act.

Mr. Martel: Why do you not put a limit on the spending?

Mr. McClellan: Put a lid on it.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, accepting regretfully, as I must, that the government House leader is prepared to allow the outrageous tax expenditure to continue with unlimited local expenditure at the riding level, will he investigate and report back to the House on the situation in regard to a number of his colleagues who are actively campaigning for the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party, a position we read in the press is soon to be vacated?

Can the minister indicate that the government election expenses procedure will not allow any leadership candidate to use the tax benefits provided in that act to build a multi-thousand dollar leadership war chest, as appears to be the case when one reads about the war chests of the member for Don Mills (Mr. Timbrell) and the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman)?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, the Commission on Election Contributions and Expenses has made some very clear rulings that apply to the member's leadership campaigns, to ours and to those of the New Democratic Party, on what can and cannot be spent. I think we will all abide by those rulings.

Someone mentioned where everybody is going tonight. I seem to recall reading in a newspaper somewhere -- I cannot recall which paper -- that a certain friend of the member's will be at that dinner tonight. He is running in a riding in west Toronto called Spadina and he is spending about $750,000 to win that riding.

2:50 p.m.

CHILD ABUSE

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Attorney General follows the rather extraordinary exchange between the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps) and the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea) that most of us in the House had the misfortune to watch.

I would like to ask the Attorney General to consider the law in this question and, in particular, whether to consider having a close look at subsection 52(4) of the Child Welfare Act which, subject to two specific exceptions, subsections 52(5) and 52(10), states as follows:

"Subject to subsections 5 to 10 and notwithstanding the provisions of any other act, no person shall inspect, remove, disclose, transmit, or alter or permit the inspection, removal, disclosure, transmission or alteration of information maintained in the register established under subsection 3."

I wonder if he would look at the statements that have been made outside the House -- by the minister, by the member for Hamilton Centre and by others, as far as I am aware -- look at statements that were made in this House with respect to the identity of certain persons whose names may or may not appear on the registry in question, and inquire as to whether or not there has been a breach of the statute in this matter.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, from what the leader of the New Democratic Party has stated about the legislation, I have not heard anything that would indicate there was a breach of the statute, certainly as far as the Minister of Community and Social Services is concerned, but in view of the honourable leader's request, I will review the legislation in the context of the question that was asked.

Mr. Rae: I want to make it very clear to the Attorney General that we regard the confidentiality of that list, the lack of identity, the fact that names are withheld, names are not mentioned on the list and names of children are not dragged before the public, as absolutely sacrosanct. We understood that was the intention of the legislation and the wording of the legislation as contained in section 52.

I would ask the Attorney General, as the result of statements that have been made outside this place or inside this place, if it is now the case that someone has been identified and information with respect to the registry has been disclosed -- and "disclosure" is the exact word in the statute -- and if he would consider whether or not in the strict terms of the law there has been some kind of breach of the confidentiality requirements of the act.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I know of no one more concerned about the confidentiality of this legislation than the Minister of Community and Social Services. Given his distinguished service in this portfolio and given the fact we have discussed these matters on a number of occasions, I have no doubt that he gives the highest respect, the highest priority to what the leader of the New Democratic Party properly refers to as the importance of this confidentiality.

In view of the member's question with respect to what is purported to have been said or not said, I will review the matter and I will be prepared to offer an opinion, if that is what is being sought of the senior law officer of the crown, as to whether there has been a breach.

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary, the member for York South.

Mr. Rae: No, it is a new question, Mr. Speaker. I think the Attorney General has told me what I wanted to find out.

[Later]

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I do not have the rough Hansard but I understand that in my absence a question was raised about a breach of the Child Welfare Act in consideration of the discussion. I wanted to make sure it was read into the record that this particular incident has been a matter of public record for some months.

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Rae: My question is to the Treasurer, who was here. I know the delegate search is a long and difficult one for him, but I gather he was in the chamber and then he was out. Now he is in again.

Mr. Ruston: He is right there. There is Frank.

Mr. Rae: No, he is not the one. It is the new one I want. It was my understanding that the Treasurer was in the House. His book is here. Maybe he is checking the figures on Mr. Coutts; I do not know. Is he coming or not? I do have a number of questions for him.

Mr. Speaker: I do not know where the Treasurer is. Would you place your question to somebody else, please?

Mr. Rae: No. With great respect, Mr. Speaker, we are given a list of ministers who are going to be here. The Treasurer said he was going to be here and he was here earlier. The leaders' questions are not over and none of the rest of question period has taken place. If he said he was going to be here, surely he can be here.

Mr. Kolyn: Here he comes.

Mr. Martel: Is he standing up or kneeling?

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the member for York South could place his question, please.

Mr. Rae: Somehow the apple looks most appropriate on your desk today. I don't know why.

My question is to the Treasurer and it concerns his response to the announcement yesterday in Ottawa with respect to the Canada Health Act. Why is it the position of the Tory government of this province that the people of Ontario should be taxed extra, either in health care premiums or in some other tax the Treasurer intends to impose, in order to pay an extra $50 million or $60 million to a privileged few doctors who are already billing extra outside a system that has been negotiated between the government of Ontario and the medical profession? Why is he threatening to tax the people of this province with respect to extra billing?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, what we said yesterday was that we need some time to review the bill. In glancing at it initially after all the promised consultations, it appears to us that the bill has far more to do with the federal government taking yet more money out of the Ontario health care system and providing themselves with more visibility at the same time for the great things they want to tell the people they are doing.

That seems to be the thrust of the bill when we get right down to the sum and substance of it. Until we have had a chance to review the bill and consult in a true sense with all those affected by it and perhaps with the federal government, unlike what the federal government has done, we think it is premature to comment further at this time.

Mr. Rae: With great respect, the minister was not such a wilting, shrinking violet last night on television when it came to expressing the views of the government of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: Why is he not prepared to be as forthright in his defence of extra billing and of the system that has grown up in this province as he was last night on television? I do not quite understand what has suddenly grabbed hold of his tongue in giving a response to a basic question.

Why has he gone around this province and made statements consistently saying he is determined to maintain the extra billing system, which is producing 11,000 claims a day on an extra billing basis in this province? Why is he threatening to tax the people of this province when we have already negotiated an arrangement with the doctors of Ontario that should satisfy every single member of the medical profession in this province who can and should he practising within a fully insured system?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: First, the defence of extra billing and the success of our system does not have to be handled by this minister. Our Minister of Health (Mr. Norton) is able to do it; he will be doing it and has been doing it.

Second, last evening when I was interviewed, I was dealing with the percentages and the reality of the claim that Monique Bégin is putting out in order to set up a real circumstance that she thinks only she can ride in and solve, where she was suggesting that extra billing has now reached crisis proportions across this country and, instead of providing more money to the health care system to solve it, she was going to provide less money.

3 p.m.

If the member watched quite carefully, the point I was making last evening was that five years ago when Mme Bégin says she first started to worry about this problem, 18 per cent of the doctors in this province had opted out and about nine or 10 per cent of all bills were extra billed. Now, when she says the problem is of monumental importance and presenting a monumental threat to the health care system, those figures have declined substantially. So now, not 18 per cent of the doctors, but 14 or 15 per cent have opted out and only four or five per cent of the bills are extra billed.

Many people are billed two and three times, or 20 or 30 times, in the course of a year if they are going to a psychiatrist, for example. The actual number of people in this province who are being extra billed is probably in the area of three or four per cent. That is significantly better and significantly fewer in terms of the number of people affected than was the case five years ago.

The point I was making was that as we come up to the next federal election, the federal government wishes to hold up this brand new spectre of a sudden threat to the health care system. The only significant changes to the health care system in the past five years have been as follows: (1) significantly less opting out and extra billing; (2) a far greater, far better funded Ontario health care system than was the case five years ago; (3) the majority of that funding has been provided not by the federal government but only by the taxpayers of Ontario; and (4) during that five-year period the contribution made by the federal government of Canada, which is now wringing its hands over the health care system, has declined from 49 per cent support to 41 per cent support in Ontario.

That is the travesty and the sham they are putting up to help their chances at the polls next year.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, surely the minister knows full well that the problem with extra billing is not so much the total number, or percentages, but the selective opting out by certain specialists. We heard horror stories about this all last fall and over the past couple of years. Surely the minister knows that is basically the problem.

Why does the minister not show some leadership? If the health plan of this province requires additional funds, why does he not show some leadership, pump more funds into the plan and not leave it up to doctors to decide who should put in more money in the plan, and which patient should pay and which patient should not?

Once the minister has negotiated an agreement with the doctors, as he did a year or two ago, why would he not have sufficient guts to say to them: "You have made an agreement; you are within the plan. Those of you who want to get out of the plan or extra bill are completely out of the plan"?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, the system the honourable member describes is the one favoured by the federal government of Canada. If he reads yesterday's statement in full, he will find it would do what he has described, which in essence is to try to bring to Ontario the kind of medicare plan they now have in Quebec. The federal government is trying to force the Quebec model on Ontario and the other provinces.

The Quebec plan has had very predictable consequences over the past few years: one of them is that a number of very fine specialists who used to practise in Quebec are now practising in Ontario.

When the member goes home this weekend, I challenge him to ask people just across the border which province they feel has the better health care plan, the more accessible plan and the more comprehensive plan. The answer invariably will be the Ontario plan and not the Quebec plan. Yet the federal government wants to say, and I take it the member supports what it is doing, that everyone in this country will be better served if only it can bring the Quebec medicare plan to the rest of the public.

Mr. Roy: That is not what we are saying.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member is saying that.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, last night the minister stated again, as he has in the past, that the only people who are extra billed are those who can afford it, the rich in this province. How can the minister make that silly statement when the fact of the matter is that many cases involving extra billing of people who are retired and on pensions, such as Mr. Sikkes from Guelph, Mr. Spencer from Windsor, a Willowdale man and another Guelph man, have been brought to the attention of this Legislature?

How can the minister continue to make the statement that only the rich are being extra billed when the facts of the matter are that it is not just the rich; it is people on fixed and low incomes? The only way they can get opted-in rates is to beg for charity medicine. Is that the kind of system the minister endorses?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member has been through this many times before, but let us put this in perspective. There are 60 million claims a year going through the Ontario health insurance plan. Three or four per cent of the public is extra billed. Thanks to a regulation brought in by this government last year, every person receiving extra billed services has to have prior notification. I think that equips those people to make the proper judgement of whether they can afford to pay that extra billed amount.

Let me be clear. Unlike the members of the New Democratic Party, we do have some confidence in the medical profession not to bill those who have notified them that they cannot afford to pay. I do believe that system can and does work well, although there will be cases where judgement will not be as I would like to see it. However, for the federal government to say to the taxpayers of Ontario, because of the few times a year when there will be a problem with the system, "We, the federal government, are now going to take $60 million out of your health care plan" is the height of carelessness and the kind of unfair, over-reactive, politically based reaction we have become used to.

Let me say one other thing. Since Monique Bégin has said quite clearly that she believes doctors across Canada perhaps will have to be compensated over and above the current compensation plan if they are to be opted in, then the necessary consequence is that if there is not extra billing, every resident of Ontario will have to pay that extra amount. How do they pay it? They pay it through retail sales tax, personal income tax and all the other taxes they pay in this province.

The very people the member is concerned about, those on fixed incomes and in the low-income bracket, will be the recipients of the federal government's plan saying, "Let us move it away from three or four per cent of the people at the top end and move the tax load to those people." If the member defends that --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Thank you.

NIAGARA GRAIN AND FEED BANKRUPTCY

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. First, let me say that my initial reaction to the appointment of Clayton Switzer, a man with an agricultural background, as the new deputy minister is favourable.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Riddell: My question is to the minister following his reply to us last week concerning the receivership of Niagara Grain and Feed Ltd., an elevator company in Smithville, which has left more than 85 producers uncertain of their financial future.

Now that ministry officials have done a further investigation of the amount of grain in storage, will the minister confirm information we gave him last week that some 35 per cent of the corn is missing from the elevators? Do his records indicate, as ours do, that while only 2,500 metric tons of corn are accounted for, there are farmers who hold corn receipts for 1,832.5 metric tons, there are other farmers who hold way tickets for corn in the grain bank for 2,004 tons and there are some 1,400 metric tons unaccounted for?

Will the minister also confirm the information we have received that the corn has been missing from the first week of November, when the chief inspector was first notified of this matter?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the investigation is not completed. In particular, the process the chief inspector, Mr. Taylor, is going through to verify the way tickets is not completed. The last time I spoke with him, late last week, I understood he was working towards having that completed by this Friday; that was his hope.

I can say that following up on a statement which I believe the member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan) made last week regarding a conversation that a gentleman -- I cannot recall his name -- had with Mr. Taylor --

Mr. Riddell: He is going to have a supplementary.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I rather suspected he might. Mr. Taylor has confirmed that on the date the gentleman called him -- that date, I believe, was November 9 -- there was sufficient grain in the elevator.

Quite frankly, I think we do no one any service by perpetuating or starting any more rumours; there are more than enough now surrounding this situation. As I have said repeatedly, when all the information is in, I will be more than happy to share that information with the members and with the public, to get to the bottom of it.

3:10 p.m.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, under the Grain Elevator Storage Act, the minister has the authority and the duty to appoint a chief inspector and such other inspectors as he considers necessary to enforce the act.

Can the minister tell us why he only has one full-time chief inspector and one part-time inspector to inspect some 280 elevators licensed under the act? Does he feel it offers producers sufficient protection to have one person to try to visit these elevators? When we work this out, it is less than one day per elevator per year. In addition, the inspection he carries out is only a book inspection when what is really required is for someone to climb up and ascertain whether or not there is grain in those silos.

Would the minister not agree that this horse-and-buggy system is out of whack and should be corrected very soon to guard those other elevators which, a lot of us fear, are perhaps vulnerable today?

Finally, can we have the minister's assurance that his government will guarantee payment to both the people in the grain bank and the people who have storage receipts? Also, will the storage be released very shortly to these farmers?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, in answer to those five or six questions, it has been the experience of the ministry to date that Mr. Taylor, acting in his role as chief inspector and assisted from time to time by a part-time inspector, has been able to quite ably carry out the responsibilities that are incumbent on him under the act.

Mr. Kerrio: How can you say that?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Unless we are going to have an inspector at every one of the 280-odd elevators overseeing every transaction, obviously we have to operate under a system whereby the inspector follows up on complaints and evidence of any alleged or verified wrongdoing.

It still keeps coming back to the fact that when we are talking about a licensing system, at least in the agricultural field, the only way we are ultimately going to have a complete protection package is with rigorous licensing and a financial protection fund contributed to by the producers and possibly by processors or the other part of the industry. That is the only way we can have a complete protection plan. Otherwise, if we have strictly a licensing system, there is no way we can guarantee that the records reviewed in one month will not have changed six months later because of any number of factors that can impact on a company. So we really do need both parts.

Mr. Riddell: You will not even see that the new act is proclaimed. What about proclaiming the act?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister will confirm that cheques worth something like one third of a million dollars issued by Niagara Grain and Feed Ltd. have now bounced. These cheques were for grain that was purchased and is no longer anywhere near the elevator and is in addition to this shortfall in the grain that was stored.

I also wonder whether the minister will confirm that his own lawyers are now starting to admit that had the amendments to the Grain Elevator Storage Act been in effect, as they would have been if it had not been for his negligence, there would have been far superior protection for those farmers who had agreements for sale; there are numbers of them.

Will the minister also confirm there is growing evidence that the Bank of Montreal knew about what was taking place at least, perhaps even directing it for weeks or months before the bankruptcy or the insolvency? The bank may well have been a party.

If these facts are correct, will he not agree that it is his government and the Bank of Montreal that should be left holding that empty bag and not the farmers who sold their grain through this elevator company?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated last week, all the rumours, including some perhaps begun by the honourable member, are being checked out.

Mr. Swart: The minister is so far out of touch.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Is the member interested in the answer or not? He can sit there and chew away.

We have had several meetings at very senior levels with the bank to ascertain the facts about its role with respect to this company. My staff is working on a daily basis with the receiver in question. I have already told the member that once we have all the facts, we will be more than happy to share them. Obviously, we want as much as anybody to get to the bottom of this.

I remind the member that the legislation in question, both the existing statute and the revised statute, which will be proclaimed when the regulations are completed, do not, never have and will not cover grain that is not in storage. I cannot confirm at this point how many people have not-sufficient-funds cheques, and I cannot confirm the quantum of those cheques, but I can confirm that those transactions where there is a direct sale to a grain elevator have never been covered by the legislation.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: The minister stated over and over again on the introduction of this bill that the farmers would own the grain until they received the money.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of privilege.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I think the member is trying to leave an impression that is not correct. The act deals with grain in storage, and the principle in question covers grain in storage.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is hardly a point of privilege.

ACTIVITIES OF REGIONAL CHAIRMAN

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Is the minister aware of the rather bizarre actions of the chairman in the region of Durham, Gary Herrema, who last week engaged in what some in town are calling a little bit of spying on the poor and unemployed? He disguised himself somewhat, sat around the social services offices for an hour and then promptly went out and had an interview with the Oshawa Times where he declared that most of the young people there really do not want to work, that welfare is too easy and that we should stop that by making longer lineups. Is he aware of those rather bizarre actions on the part of the chairman?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I saw something in the newspaper about that.

Mr. Breaugh: The union involved is rather concerned that if one of their members had done this he probably would have been fired, or some disciplinary action would have been taken, because the General Welfare Assistance Act requires some confidentiality. Is the minister satisfied that the chief executive officer in the region of Durham feels quite free to sit around and listen to gossip for about an hour in the social services department and then report publicly that most of the people do not want work and that welfare is too easy and they should not get it? Is he happy with that situation?

3:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I am never happy when attitudinal responses to very important questions such as social assistance are conveyed as universal tenets. I do not understand how any member of the union could be charged for doing what the regional chairman did, because no names were used -- at least in what I read -- and no personal data or so forth were revealed. It was about the equivalent of a regional chairman going into a Canada Employment and Immigration office and asking attitudinal responses about work.

Mr. Cureatz: Mr. Speaker, does the minister feel assured that the chairman did not contravene any legislation in the method in which he attended the welfare office?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I do not know of any legislation that prevents anybody from walking into a social assistance office and sitting there. The act and its confidentiality pertain to the revelation of details of personal data, family background and so forth. If somebody wants to go around and seek out how somebody feels today, that is his prerogative, especially when, as I understand it, he did not make any recommendations concerning whether there was eligibility or not.

LENGTH OF JAIL SENTENCE

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Attorney General and it involves a case that is of very great concern in the Ottawa-Carleton area, the unfortunate death of a young man by the name of Jason Verdon and the subsequent sentence of an individual by the name of Dionne to two years in jail.

The Attorney General will recall that Dionne was originally charged with first-degree murder in connection with the death of Jason Verdon and was subsequently discharged after a very lengthy preliminary hearing. The crown at that time undertook to prefer an indictment and subsequently the matter was apparently resolved when a charge of criminal negligence was laid. Dionne pleaded guilty to that charge and was sentenced to two years less a day.

Can the Attorney General confirm that the decision to appeal this sentence was made by him? Can he give the House assurances that he did not launch this appeal as a result of community pressure from the city of Ottawa and, more specifically, a petition, apparently by the mother, of some 3,000 names?

Second, can the Attorney General assure the House that in launching this appeal he is not in breach of any agreement or undertaking on the part of his crown attorney in Ottawa, who apparently, according to defence counsel, had not objected and, in fact, is quoted as saying on sentence that the sentence of two years was not unreasonable?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, the appeal was launched after a lengthy discussion with the Deputy Attorney General and the director of the criminal law division of the ministry, who felt that an appeal was appropriate in the circumstances, and not as a result of any community pressure. I am satisfied that no commitment was made by the crown attorney in relation to a sentence of two years. As a matter of fact, I have seen some correspondence to the contrary.

Mr. Roy: I know personally all of the people involved in this case, defence counsel Mr. Scott Milloy and Mr. Bill Carroll, and the crown attorney Mr. Mac Lindsay. They are all very honourable people. But defence counsel is quoted as saying after the appeal was launched, "In 14 years of practising criminal law I have never had a trick like this played on me." He goes on to say, "Lindsay," apparently the crown attorney, "had given an oral undertaking not to appeal the two-year sentence." These are the quotes from defence counsel.

Can the Attorney General advise whether in launching this appeal in these circumstances there is not some possibility that he will undermine the discussions between crown and defence counsel, which, as he knows, in the administration of criminal justice at least, are a very important factor? If the principle of free discussion is undermined, then the whole administration of justice could be jeopardized.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The statements attributed to the defence counsel that were read by the member for Ottawa East are certainly consistent with what I have read, but these allegations are quite inconsistent with the facts as given to me. The information I have is that there was no such undertaking.

While I regret there is this difference of opinion between the defence counsel and the crown attorney, I do not think for a moment that a difference of opinion in this particular case is going to undermine the administration of justice in this province.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, will the Attorney General undertake to report back to this House on the question of whether this plea bargaining which takes place in the courts of Ontario goes so far as plea bargaining over the actual form or length of the sentence? I think the public would be extremely disturbed if it was the position of the crown attorneys that not only were they prepared to plea bargain over which offence the accused would plead guilty to but also over how long the sentence would be.

Can we have an assurance there is not that kind of plea bargaining taking place and that will not be the position of crown attorneys in the future?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, the plea discussions that take place often do revolve around what is in the public interest. As far as the position of the crown attorney is concerned, it is very clear in the instructions laid down over the years, not just by myself but by my predecessors, that any discussions and any agreement that might be reached must be in the public interest.

Certainly the appropriateness of a certain term of sentence is discussed from time to time but it should be understood that while a crown attorney in a particular case may say that in his or her view a sentence or a particular range of sentence would be appropriate, the trial judge is in no way bound by the submissions of crown counsel or defence counsel and indeed must come to his own independent conclusion as to what is the appropriate sentence.

LEADED GASOLINE

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. The minister is no doubt aware of the stated intention of Mr. Caccia, the federal Minister of the Environment, to announce some time in January a program for the phasing out of the use of lead in gasoline. Can the minister confirm the existence of an interministerial committee or task force in the ministries of the Environment, Health and Labour which has been set up to look at the question of lead and lead emissions from gasoline?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe Mr. Caccia or the people at Environment Canada have indicated arbitrarily that they are going to phase out lead in gasoline completely. I think what they have indicated is there is a possibility of a complete and total phase-out. There is also a possibility of a reduction in lead in gasoline that may be the equivalent of the United States standard, so there is no assurance at this point that lead in gas is going to be completely phased out.

On the second part of the question, there is an interministerial task force which is looking at appropriate levels and that is the case not only with respect to lead in gas but other contaminants as well. In the ministries he mentioned, they do look at those questions and lead in gas is one of them.

Mr. Charlton: Why does the minister not announce when he has an interministerial task force looking at questions like this so that interested parties out there in the research community and the public at large can have contact with that task force and perhaps even have some input with it?

Also, can he explain why a memo was sent in July this year to the deputy ministers of the Environment, Health and Labour suggesting the study which this task force is doing should provide reassurance that the health of children in Ontario is not at undue risk as a consequence of ongoing use of lead in gasoline, when we know the lead is causing problems and it is a matter of reduction, if not total elimination?

3:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: I am not familiar with the specific memo the honourable member is referring to, but I can say with respect to the question of lead in gas that it is not the only source from which lead is ingested into the body, as I am sure the member is aware. There are other mechanisms by which lead can be transferred and one of them is through the food chain by the use of food from cans, as an example. It is estimated that somewhere in the order of 70 per cent of all lead in the human body is ingested by way of the food chain rather than by way of lead in gas.

The case is not quite so well defined and so assured as the member would suggest with respect to lead in gas. The issue is being looked at very carefully by the federal government. It is a federal issue, not a provincial issue. We have provided the federal government with the information we have available to us, the studies and resources we have, in order to assist with coming to an appropriate conclusion on the question, but it is a federal matter and is being addressed by Mr. Caccia at that level of government.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that I share the member's concern about children's health. Is the minister aware there are other ways of reducing the octane number of gasoline other than lead? The principal way is by using an alcohol mixture along with gasoline. This movement is alive and well in the United States. They are selling gasohol over there and manufacturing alcohol for that purpose.

The time is just perfect for that as the payment in kind program, the acreage reduction program, comes off in the United States. As they come back into full production in grains for next year there is going to be ample grain available to produce that alcohol to solve the problem of children's health, the problem of octane rating and the problem of surplus corn stocks. There is a role in this for Ontario. Is the minister aware of this?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Yes, I am, Mr. Speaker. I say to the member that there are a number of other additives that could be used to substitute for lead in gas and we are aware of those as well; benzine being one. The concern on the part of the Ministry of the Environment is that some of those additives could be even more hazardous than lead in gas. Before any of those additives are considered by way --

Mr. J. A. Reed: Hazardous? Alcohol?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: I did not say the one he mentioned. I said some of the additives that could be considered are more hazardous than lead in gas. We would like to know what the alternative would be before we would approve of it. We are looking at the lead in gas question, yes.

PETITIONS

INFLATION RESTRAINT LEGISLATION

Mr. Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned teachers, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas we oppose the extension of the Inflation Restraint Act because it is inequitable in its application to the citizens of Ontario and restricts our basic free collective bargaining rights --

Mr. Foulds: You are going to vote against it on third reading tonight, are you not?

Mr. Mitchell: I, none the less, have the right to introduce the petition no matter what my position is.

Sorry for the interruption, Mr. Speaker.

"Whereas we believe that an extension of the act or measures which will have a similar effect would violate the spirit of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to restore our free collective bargaining rights forthwith under Bill 100, the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act."

Mr. Gillies: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a number of petitions to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned teachers, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas we oppose the extension of the Inflation Restraint Act because it is inequitable in its application to the citizens of Ontario and restricts our basic free collective bargaining rights; and

"Whereas we believe that an extension of the act or measures which will have a similar effect would violate the spirit of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to restore our free collective bargaining rights forthwith under Bill 100, the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act."

Mr. McEwen: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by 21 teachers from North Addington Education Centre. The petition reads:

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned teachers, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas we oppose the extension of the Inflation Restraint Act because it is inequitable in its application to the citizens of Ontario and restricts our basic free collective bargaining rights; and

"Whereas we believe that an extension of the act or measures which will have a similar effect would violate the spirit of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to restore our free collective bargaining rights forthwith under Bill 100, the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act."

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ELECTION ACT

Hon. Mr. Wells moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. McMurtry, first reading of Bill 153, An Act to revise the Election Act.

Motion agreed to.

GAME AND FISH AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Philip moved, seconded by Mr. Swart, first reading of Bill 154, An Act to amend the Game and Fish Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, this bill bans the use of leghold traps on land. The bill has the support of the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies, the Ontario Humane Society, the Canadian Association for Humane Trapping, the International Fund for Animal Welfare, Greenpeace and a number of other animal welfare groups.

The major concepts of the bill have also met with the support of various trappers who consider these approaches moderate.

TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE ACT

Mr. Cassidy moved, seconded by Mr. Foulds, first reading of Bill 155, An Act respecting Technological Change.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, this bill responds to the needs of Ontario workers in the total absence of legislative protection in Ontario. It is, in fact, the first legislation dealing with technological change in Ontario.

3:40 p.m.

Legislation is needed because of the enormous impact that new technologies are having and will have on work in Ontario. While these new technologies promise enormous increases in productivity and competitiveness, they also have the potential to deskill workers, to dehumanize their work and to throw hundreds of thousands of Ontarians out of work.

Less than 20 per cent of Ontario workers have any protection against technological change through their collective agreements. The rest are now defenceless when it comes to making decisions about how technological change will affect their jobs.

The aim of this bill, therefore, is to allow both unorganized and organized workers to participate in managing the introduction of new equipment, new materials or new processes that would significantly affect job security or the way their work is carried out.

I believe workers are prepared to co-operate in adapting to technological change if their needs are respected. But workers have made almost no progress in the past few years in getting this protection through their collective agreements, and in the bargaining climate of the 1980s little more success can be expected through that route. That is why legislative action is both urgent and important in Ontario.

I want to pay my thanks to Cornelia Schuh of the legislative counsel's office for assistance in drafting this bill which, among other things, is the first bill to be presented in the Ontario Legislature in both official languages.

Ce projet de loi répond aux besoins des travailleurs ontariens, afin de combler un vide laissé par l'absence totale de protection législative dans ce domaine en Ontario. C'est la première fois qu'un projet de loi a été déposé dans cette Chambre dans les deux langues officielles du Canada.

Une loi est nécessaire en raison des répercussions considérables que les technologies de pointe continueront d'avoir sur le travail en Ontario. Les technologies de pointe annoncent une augmentation phénoménale de la productivité et de la compétitivité, mais elles risquent toutefois de rendre inutiles les compétences des travailleurs, de déshumaniser le travail et d'entraîner la mise à pied de centaines de milliers d'Ontariens de plus.

Moins de 20 pour cent des travailleurs ontariens sont protégés, dans leur convention collective, contre les changements technologiques. Les autres sont sans défense lorsqu'il est question de prendre des décisions qui entraînent des changements technologiques qui influent sur leurs emplois.

Ce projet de loi vise à permettre aux travailleurs, syndiqués ou non syndiqués, de participer à la gestion de l'introduction du matériel, des matériaux ou des procédés nouveaux qui influeront sensiblement sur la sécurité d'emploi ou les méthodes de travail.

Je crois que les travailleurs sont prêts à coopérer et à s'adapter aux changements technologiques si on respecte leurs besoins. Mais ces dernières années, les travailleurs n'ont presque pas fait de progrès pour ce qui est d'inclure dans leurs contrats des clauses qui les protègent contre les changements technologiques. Vu le climat des années 1980, on ne peut guère s'attendre à plus de succès à l'avenir. C'est pourquoi il est impératif d'adopter sans délai des mesures législatives dans ce domaine en Ontario. Merci beaucoup.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

HERITAGE WINDSOR ACT

Mr. Newman moved second reading of Bill Pr13, An Act to incorporate Heritage Windsor.

Motion agreed to.